RAJ KUMAR Vs. SAT PAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Brahmadeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 856 , contends that he is a stranger to the decree and being n possession is entitled to hold possession against the decree. Further, teamed Counsel contended that he was in adverse possession and as such could claim title to the property and objections filed by me ought to have been dismissed or accepted upon completion of full trial.

(2.) This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is based upon misconception of law and facts. Decree in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 2.11.1988 and the appeal filed against the decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar as well as the High Court. Even Special Leave Petition preferred by the parties was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.1.1997. In furtherance thereto, the decree-holder has deposited the sum required under the terms of the decree, but was not able to get possession, as various objections were filed from time to time. The present attempt of the petitioner-objector, based upon claim of adverse possession hostile to the decree holder, is nothing but an attempt to circumvent the process of law.

(3.) It needs to be noticed that the present objector is not stranger to the decree as the judgment debtor is the mother of the objector. Having lost upto the Honourable Supreme Court, the party cannot be permitted to raise such frivolous objection claiming adverse possession.